Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship

On 3/21/24 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uthibv$29328$7@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/20/24 2:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <utevar$1iacj$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/19/24 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>

WTF? What country do you think this is, Ketanji?
>
The Bill of Rights wasn't written to restrain WE THE PEOPLE.
>
It was written to restrain THE GOVERNMENT.
>
Getting in the way of government censorship efforts is precisely what the
1st Amendment was intended to do. It's a feature, not a bug. If the
government's attempts at censorship are hitting a brick wall because of
the
1st Amendment, that's a sign everything's working as intended.
>
It's become stunningly apparent why Biden diversity-hired your Marxist
ass.
>
-------------------
https://gazette.com/news/wex/ketanji-brown-jackson-concerned-first-amendme
nt
-is-hamstringing-government-from-censorship/article_5a732827-ef9a-56fd-a10
b-
aee7be8cb179.amp.html
>
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the 1st
Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

 

"You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the
government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful
information," Jackson said. "So, can you help me? Because I'm really
worried about that because you've got the 1st Amendment operating in an
environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's
perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with
the source of those problems."
>
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in
certain situations, but it has to do so by following the 1st Amendment.
>
"Our position is not that the government can't interact with the
platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances
like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and
especially young people," Aguiñaga said in response. "But the way
they do that has to be in compliance with the 1st Amendment and I
think that means they can give them all the true information that
the platform needs and ask to amplify that."
>
Jackson said a "once-in-a-lifetime pandemic" or other emergencies would
provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are
misinformative.

 

The government has the power and, indeed the right to make sure that
harmful information doesn't get to the public.

>
(1) The government has no rights. Only citizens have rights. Government
only has powers granted to it by the citizens.
>
(2) Whatever power the the government may have with regard to 'harmful
information' is limited by the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government
censorship.
>
The 1st Amendment doesn't say, "...shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, except if some government bureaucrat decides what
you're saying is harmful".
>
(3) This restriction on government power doesn't even go away when
there's an emergency, as the Supreme Court has ruled:
>
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may
disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency."  Ex
parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
>

"I'm interested in your view that the context does't change the 1st
Amendment principles," she said. "I understood our 1st Amendment
jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions
of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking
about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example,
that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-
a-lifetime pandemic."

>
Try telling kids to eat Tide Pods because they're good for them and see
where it gets you.
>
Or try publishing National Defense secrets...

>
No, Effa, we already resolved that one and, as usual, your point of view
loses:
>
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
>
RULING: The New York Times' publishing of the national security
information found in the Pentagon Papers is protected speech under the
1st Amendment, even during time of war.
>
Once again reinforcing that there is no 'emergency exception' to the
requirements and restrictions the Constitution places on the government.
>
(This is one of those landmark cases that you should have learned about
in grade school, Effa. Certainly something a self-proclaimed amateur
historian should-- but apparently doesn't-- know.)
>

And the press is a protected institution. You're not the press.

 Nowhere does the 1st Amendment limit press protection to only people who
work for big legacy corporations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled
that citizen media-- bloggers, YouTubers, individual citizens commenting
on websites-- all fall under the 1st Amendment's press protections.
 You're 0 for 2 on this one, Shit-Shoes. Wanna go for the hat trick?

So you're saying you represent a publication?  Because when FPP says you aren't the press, and you said but but but citizen media! you failed to indicate which "citizen media" you're with.  Ostensibly you just said FPP was spot on then.  P.S. You even more mind numbingly stupid than usual here.